Abstract

The use of food labelling to convey information about product and process quality and for product differentiation purposes has multiplied. In order to judge the relevance attributed by consumers to such information, valid measurement methods are needed. Such methods are also needed to reveal the probabilistic nature of preference data, so that heterogeneity can be explicitly accounted for. A survey among Swedish residents (n = 506) compared attribute importance rankings for labelling of beef from two formats of best-worst scaling (BWS) with those from standard direct ranking (DR). A choice probability R-index measure was modelled to make the methodological comparison consistent. While earlier studies on labelling of beef were confirmed, BWS and DR did not concur when directly compared, even when using the R-index. BWS improved individual choice predictions compared with DR, and generated a more consistent dominance ordering of attribute importance. These findings suggest that methods used to elicit importance weights or preference ranking may violate transitivity and dominance requirements. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords

Food quality; Food labelling; Standard ranking; Best-worst scaling; Hierarchical Bayesian estimation; R-index

Published in

Food Quality and Preference
2013, Volume: 29, number: 2, pages: 77-88
Publisher: ELSEVIER SCI LTD

SLU Authors

• Lagerkvist, Carl-Johan

  • Department of Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
    

UKÄ Subject classification

Economics
Psychology (excluding Applied Psychology)


Publication identifier

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.02.005

Permanent link to this page (URI)

https://res.slu.se/id/publ/53223